23 replies to this topic

[Tamago Ausf F2]

Amazing future technology!
Never will go bouncing.
Machine gun bullets hit exactly the armor even.

Machine does not go bouncing thing.
Gauss Rifle also does not go bouncing.
It is strange armor material.

[Aresye]

No weapon bounce.
Machine gun only bounce is rule follow.
For rule follow, ignore corerule.

[Bhael Fire]

MecatamaMk2, on 14 September 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

Amazing future technology!
Never will go bouncing.

Will go bouncing for money.

Ignore laws, prostitution for.

BattleTech and c-bills.

[zagibu]

He has a point, though. Damage based on incoming angle could be a good way to make bullet weapons more challenging to use. Would also help some mechs with large, but angled CTs. I don't think it should ever bounce for 0 damage, but maybe only do half if the angle is bad.

Edited by zagibu, 14 September 2014 - 01:08 AM.

[zagibu]

FPS drop? It would obviously have to be calculated on the server. Also, a dot product between two vectors is a very quick calculation.

Edited by zagibu, 14 September 2014 - 01:37 AM.

[DAYLEET]

zagibu, on 14 September 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

He has a point, though. Damage based on incoming angle could be a good way to make bullet weapons more challenging to use. Would also help some mechs with large, but angled CTs. I don't think it should ever bounce for 0 damage, but maybe only do half if the angle is bad.

I agree. It's not hard to have angles with different damage taken for balistic.

[stjobe]

MecatamaMk2, on 14 September 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

It is strange armor material.

Indeed it is.

'Mechs (and some other combat vehicles) use ablative armour, a type of armour we don't much use today apart from heat shielding on spacecraft returning from space.

[Kaspirikay]

jon is kil

[zagibu]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Indeed it is.

'Mechs (and some other combat vehicles) use ablative armour, a type of armour we don't much use today apart from heat shielding on spacecraft returning from space.

Hence why no hits should do 0 damage. But impact energy is still based on angle.

[Satan n stuff]

stjobe, on 14 September 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Indeed it is.

'Mechs (and some other combat vehicles) use ablative armour, a type of armour we don't much use today apart from heat shielding on spacecraft returning from space.

That's because we currently don't have a material that is both strong enough to absorb a significant amount of energy and able to distribute that energy efficiently.

The closest thing we currently have is Kevlar body armor and the like but it needs the mass of the person wearing it to absorb most of the energy, and projectiles capable of transferring enough energy to a single point will go right through it and into that person.

Theoretically the most efficient kind of armor would be strong and flexible enough to absorb impacts up to a certain limit with little to no decrease in effectiveness, while it would gradually or in extreme cases instantly disintegrate if hit by anything more powerful. This kind of armor would effectively be ablative, and would be almost completely immune to weaker weapons, not unlike mech armor.
Next generation meta materials seem promising in that regard, but it will be a long while before creating armor like that is even possible, let alone cost effective.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 14 September 2014 - 02:37 AM.

[FDJustin]

Satan n stuff, on 14 September 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

That's because we currently don't have a material that is both strong enough to absorb a significant amount of energy and able to distribute that energy efficiently.

The closest thing we currently have is Kevlar body armor and the like but it needs the mass of the person wearing it to absorb most of the energy, and projectiles capable of transferring enough energy to a single point will go right through it and into that person.

Theoretically the most efficient kind of armor would be strong and flexible enough to absorb impacts up to a certain limit with little to no decrease in effectiveness, while it would gradually or in extreme cases instantly disintegrate if hit by anything more powerful. This kind of armor would effectively be ablative, and would be almost completely immune to weaker weapons, not unlike mech armor.
Next generation meta materials seem promising in that regard, but it will be a long while before creating armor like that is even possible, let alone cost effective.

Maybe if you become a materials scientist and engineer, you can figure out a substance to do just that.
We have a lot of neat things aldready if you take some time to look into them. Self healing polymers, aerogels, "see through aluminum" (basically just artificial sapphires without the colour imparting impurities)... http://gizmodo.com/3...r-heads-explode This stuff...

Edited by FDJustin, 14 September 2014 - 03:02 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

FDJustin, on 14 September 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:

Maybe if you become a materials scientist and engineer, you can figure out a substance to do just that.

It takes some serious molecular engineering for anything to be able to do that, my money is on carbon nanotubes and possible derivatives, but those aren't remotely practical to make with current technology.
I have a feeling that my high school chemistry ( which I failed ) won't be of much use so I think I'll pass on becoming a materials scientist.

[FDJustin]

Satan n stuff, on 14 September 2014 - 04:47 AM, said:

It takes some serious molecular engineering for anything to be able to do that, my money is on carbon nanotubes and possible derivatives, but those aren't remotely practical to make with current technology.
I have a feeling that my high school chemistry ( which I failed ) won't be of much use so I think I'll pass on becoming a materials scientist.

Maybe you just didn't care. I find people typically need a good reason to learn something, and they need it explained in reference to things they already understand.

[Satan n stuff]

FDJustin, on 14 September 2014 - 05:17 AM, said:

Maybe you just didn't care. I find people typically need a good reason to learn something, and they need it explained in reference to things they already understand.

No, I failed chemistry because I spent all my time playing video games instead of studying, not because I didn't care. While I'm somewhat interested in the hard sciences I have no intention of ever pursuing a career in them.

[Y E O N N E]

zagibu, on 14 September 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

He has a point, though. Damage based on incoming angle could be a good way to make bullet weapons more challenging to use. Would also help some mechs with large, but angled CTs. I don't think it should ever bounce for 0 damage, but maybe only do half if the angle is bad.

Any weapon should do less damage from an oblique angle. Even a laser. At anything other than head-on, you have more armor to bore through than just the thickness of the plate perpendicular to its forward surface.

Also, because 'Mech armor diverts damage through ablative means, that sort of implies that a low-energy weapon like a machine gun could chip away at it if the threshold at which the armor is stripped off is low enough.

[zagibu]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 September 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

Any weapon should do less damage from an oblique angle. Even a laser. At anything other than head-on, you have more armor to bore through than just the thickness of the plate perpendicular to its forward surface.

Also, because 'Mech armor diverts damage through ablative means, that sort of implies that a low-energy weapon like a machine gun could chip away at it if the threshold at which the armor is stripped off is low enough.

That's not the effect we are talking about. You are right that because of the angle, the armor thickness would be higher, but without deflection, the impact energy would destroy the same armor amount, just in a different vector compared to a more direct hit (remove the upper layer of several armor plates instead of removing a single armor plate completely). The net armor removed would be the same, just distributed over more area.

What we are talking about is deflection, and it has a greater effect on mass projectile weapons than on energy weapons (at least in my head).

Also, my main reason to do this to ACs is not realism, but that it could be a good way to buff the CT of some mechs, e.g. CPLT or JR7.

[Y E O N N E]

Let's say the armor is laid out in tiny tiles approximately 1 mm by 1 mm. Let's say your laser beam also has a diameter of 1 mm. If you shoot at the target from an oblique angle, you are hitting two tiles instead of just one, meaning the energy is spread to two plates. However, because it's distributed, it does less damage to each plate.

So, your overall damage should be the same, but not as localized.

You got that part right.

However, in MWO each section is itself one large tile, so it's impossible to take this sort of thing into account without simply lowering the resulting damage as an analogy.

Why is this pertinent? Because lasers and ballistics both work by transferring energy to the target and that energy is deflected, in both cases, by the mass flying away. Because 'Mech armor is ablative, they essentially deflect damage the same way and angle of impact behaves similarly.

Tile the armor in 2 cm by 2 cm squares and hit it at an angle with a 2 cm round, and what do you get? Multiple tiles being hit and individually taking less damage than just the one would while having the same collective damage.

If the armor worked by being dense and rigid, you might have a case for angle of attack reducing damage for ballistics vs. no effect for lasers.

So yeah. I, personally, would love a more realistic 'Mech Warrior, but if we're just considering this mechanic for balancing reasons I'd rather just achieve the effect through quirks.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 16 September 2014 - 06:14 PM.

[Tamago Ausf F2]

Aresye, on 14 September 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

No weapon bounce.
Machine gun only bounce is rule follow.
For rule follow, ignore corerule.

bounce in corerule? hmmmmm?

[Tamago Ausf F2]

i mean this:
http://blog.worldofw...-warships-pt-1/
http://blog.worldofw...-warships-pt-2/

+ armor mass&density. light&very fast ammo = more bouncing. heavy&slow = less bouncing
WOT have ot. player learn that effect use. player use teatime, reverse teatime, hulldown.

[Dawnstealer]

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?